Nonadherence to primary prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.

BackgroundDespite the effectiveness of prophylaxis, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) continues to be the most common serious opportunistic infection among HIV-infected persons. We describe factors associated with nonadherence to primary PCP prophylaxis.Methodology/principal findingsWe used 2000-2004 data from the Supplement to HIV/AIDS Surveillance (SHAS) project, a cross-sectional interview project of HIV-infected persons >or=18 years conducted in 18 states. We limited the analysis to persons who denied having prior PCP, reported having a current prescription to prevent PCP, and answered the question "In the past 30 days, how often were you able to take the PCP medication(s) exactly the way your doctor told you to take them?" We used multivariable logistic regression to describe factors associated with nonadherence. Of 1,666 subjects prescribed PCP prophylaxis, 305 (18.3%) were nonadherent. Persons were more likely to be nonadherent if they reported using marijuana (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1-2.4), non-injection drugs other than marijuana (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.1), or injection drugs (aOR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.3-4.1) in the past year; their mental health was "not good" for >or=1 day during the past month (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.2); their most recent CD4 count was <200 cells/microL (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.2); or taking ART usually (aOR = 9.6, 95% CI = 6.7-13.7) or sometimes/rarely/never (aOR = 18.4, 95% CI = 11.1-30.4), compared with always, as prescribed.Conclusion/significanceProviders should inquire about and promote strategies to improve adherence to PCP prophylaxis, particularly among persons who use illicit drugs, have mental health issues, and who are not compliant with ART to reduce the occurrence of PCP

Quality of Care for HIV Infection Provided by Ryan White Program-Supported versus Non-Ryan White Program-Supported Facilities

BACKGROUND: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Care Act (now the Treatment Modernization Act; Ryan White Program, or RWP) is a source of federal public funding for HIV care in the United States. The Health Services and Resources Administration requires that facilities or providers who receive RWP funds ensure that HIV health services are accessible and delivered according to established HIV-related treatment guidelines. We used data from population-based samples of persons in care for HIV infection in three states to compare the quality of HIV care in facilities supported by the RWP, with facilities not supported by the RWP. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Within each area (King County in Washington State; southern Louisiana; and Michigan), a probability sample of patients receiving care for HIV infection in 1998 was drawn. Based on medical records abstraction, information was collected on prescription of antiretroviral therapy according to treatment recommendations, prescription of prophylactic therapy, and provision of recommended vaccinations and screening tests. We calculated population-level estimates of the extent to which HIV care was provided according to then-current treatment guidelines in RWP-supported and non-RWP-supported facilities. For all treatment outcomes analyzed, the compliance with care guidelines was at least as good for patients who received care at RWP-supported (vs non-RWP supported) facilities. For some outcomes in some states, delivery of recommended care was significantly more common for patients receiving care in RWP-supported facilities: for example, in Louisiana, patients receiving care in RWP-supported facilities were more likely to receive indicated prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and Mycobacterium avium complex, and in all three states, women receiving care in RWP-supported facilities were more likely to have received an annual Pap smear. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of HIV care provided in 1998 to patients in RWP-supported facilities was of equivalent or better quality than in non-RWP supported facilities; however, there were significant opportunities for improvement in all facility types. Data from population-based clinical outcomes surveillance data can be used as part of a broader strategy to evaluate the quality of publicly-supported HIV care

A prospective study of hearing changes after beginning zidovudine or didanosine in HIV-1 treatment-naïve people

BACKGROUND: While hearing loss in HIV-infected people after beginning nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) has been reported, there have been no prospective studies that measured hearing changes longitudinally in treatment-naïve HIV-infected subjects following initiation of regimens containing NRTIs. The goal of this study was to conduct a prospective assessment of the contribution of zidovudine (ZDV) and didanosine (ddI) to hearing loss METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective observational pilot study to determine whether ZDV or ddI, alone or in combination, are associated with sensorineural hearing loss in HIV-infected persons. Changes in hearing levels at all frequencies and in low and high frequency pure tone averages were measured at baseline, 16, and 32 weeks after initiating antiretroviral therapy. DISCUSSION: Treatment with ZDV and ddI did not result in loss of hearing, even after taking into account noise exposure, immune status and age. The results of this prospective pilot study do not support the notion that treatment with nucleoside antiretrovirals damages hearing

A Probability Sample for Monitoring the HIV-infected Population in Care in the U.S. and in Selected States

Epidemiologic and clinical changes in the HIV epidemic over time have presented a challenge to public health surveillance to monitor behavioral and clinical factors that affect disease progression and HIV transmission. The Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) is a supplemental surveillance project designed to provide representative, population-based data on clinical status, care, outcomes, and behaviors of HIV-infected persons receiving care at the national level. We describe a three-stage probability sampling method that provides both nationally and state-level representative estimates. In stage-I, 20 states, which included 6 separately funded cities/counties, were selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. PPS sampling was also used in stage-II to select facilities for participation in each of the 26 funded areas. In stage-III, patients were randomly selected from sampled facilities in a manner that maximized the possibility of having overall equal selection probabilities for every patient in the state or city/county. The sampling methods for MMP could be adapted to other research projects at national or sub-national levels to monitor populations of interest or evaluate outcomes and care for a range of specific diseases or conditions

Response rates for providing a blood specimen for HIV testing in a population-based survey of young adults in Zimbabwe

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine differences among persons who provided blood specimens for HIV testing compared with those who did not among those interviewed for the population-based Zimbabwe Young Adult Survey (YAS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Chi-square analysis of weighted data to compare demographic and behavioral data of persons interviewed who provided specimens for anonymous testing with those who did not. Prevalence estimation to determine the impact if persons not providing specimens had higher prevalence rates than those who did.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Comparing those who provided specimens with those who did not, there was no significant difference by age, residence, education, marital status, perceived risk, sexual experience or number of sex partners for women. A significant difference by sexual experience was found for men. Prevalence estimates did not change substantially when prevalence was assumed to be two times higher for persons not providing specimens.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When comparing persons who provided specimens for HIV testing with those who did not, few significant differences were found. If those who did not provide specimens had prevalence rates twice that of those who did, overall prevalence would not be substantially affected. Refusal to provide blood specimens does not appear to have contributed to an underestimation of HIV prevalence.</p